Humans, and some other species, have been shown to have mirror neurons that are involved with empathy. Some argue that we are not hard wired for aggression and self interests. The economist and political adviser Jeremy Rifkin has written a thick book on this discovery and the consequences.

Speaking of empathy, around 800 normally peaceful and quiet Canadians stormed the gates of Marineland in Niagara Falls today, protesting longstanding allegations of animal abuse and neglect. There are no laws or regulatory agencies in Canada that are responsible for monitoring these aquatic zoos. The Canadian government thinks it's fine the way it is with the industry monitoring itself. What could go wrong?

I 'm sorry to hear of anyone in an anguished state, but I must play devil's advocate a wee bit here. I have met many people who genuinely fretted over the perceived mistreatment of animals, and I agree wholeheartedly that it is a worthy cause to advocate animal rights. However, what has dismayed me, is an all too common coldness or indifference in these same people, to suffering inflicted on humans. This is really indicative of a misanthropic streak, where people who perceive they have been wronged by the world of people, can readily identify with animal victims of human wrong-doing, but human victims can't be similarly empathised with, because they are, after all, of the very species that perpetrates these injustices. A feat of mental gymnastics no doubt, but not a rare one by any means, in my experience.

I 'm sorry to hear of anyone in an anguished state, but I must play devil's advocate a wee bit here. I have met many people who genuinely fretted over the perceived mistreatment of animals, and I agree wholeheartedly that it is a worthy cause to advocate animal rights. However, what has dismayed me, is an all too common coldness or indifference in these same people, to suffering inflicted on humans. This is really indicative of a misanthropic streak, where people who perceive they have been wronged by the world of people, can readily identify with animal victims of human wrong-doing, but human victims can't be similarly empathised with, because they are, after all, of the very species that perpetrates these injustices. A feat of mental gymnastics no doubt, but not a rare one by any means, in my experience.

I think the 'fretting' over the mistreatment of animals arises out of the fact that they can't speak our language(they can't speak up for themselves) plus we can out-wit them most of the time and constrain them too. Obviously that applies to some humans too and I do feel equally bad for them. The bottom line is, humans are better equipped to get themselves out of bad situations than animals are(obviously I'm speaking very generally here, please don't cite examples where the opposite is true!).

Life is all too much ............................................. and not enough.

It is only when you form your question precisely and accurately that you receive the true answer.

Humans, and some other species, have been shown to have mirror neurons that are involved with empathy. Some argue that we are not hard wired for aggression and self interests. The economist and political adviser Jeremy Rifkin has written a thick book on this discovery and the consequences.

I am lucky in that the county I live in has one of the lowest crime rates in the U.K. . The county is sparsely populated and therefore consists mainly of small rural communities. Animal cruelty is largely of the legal kind i.e. farming, fishing, although there is the occasional horse-mutilation reported(latest was less than a week ago).

I think you live in the same county as me, we've had horse mutilation here, I did a thread about it. We could be neighbours!

I think the 'fretting' over the mistreatment of animals arises out of the fact that they can't speak our language(they can't speak up for themselves) plus we can out-wit them most of the time and constrain them too. Obviously that applies to some humans too and I do feel equally bad for them. The bottom line is, humans are better equipped to get themselves out of bad situations than animals are(obviously I'm speaking very generally here, please don't cite examples where the opposite is true!).

I have heard this kind of rationalization before, the real bottom line is you have to perceive yourself as a deeply wronged, and especially isolated victim of human malice to "side" with animals that are persecuted, but not people. Or do you not consider yourself such a victim ? We can probably infer Hitler was such a person, cruelly indifferent to humans, but lovingly devoted to his German Shepherd dogs. I can even recall people half-excusing Hitler because he was an animal lover ! No surprise to hear they were animal liberationists. This is primarily a psychological phenomenon, and has more to do with the inner world of those so-afflicted, than external realities. I have never heard an animal cruelty fanatic express concern over the seeming cruelties of the natural world, which have never ceased for hundreds of millions of years, the difference being that humans are not directly responsible. I see animal cruelty campaigners as being as much anti-people as pro-animals in very many cases. Unless your heart extends as much to human "victims" as it does to animal ones, you are picking winners, in the same way "cute" fauna gets people motivated to protect, but "ugly" fauna can take their chances. Pandas are cuter than the average human, seemingly.

I have heard this kind of rationalization before, the real bottom line is you have to perceive yourself as a deeply wronged, and especially isolated victim of human malice to "side" with animals that are persecuted, but not people.

I'm going to interject here, I've heard all these fallacies before. This first one is a false dichotomy, an exclusive either or that doesn't really exist. It is quite feasible to be concerned with animal welfare and human welfare at the same time. Exhibit A is William Wilberforce a leader in the fight against slavery and a founder of the RSPCA.

Quote

Or do you not consider yourself such a victim ? We can probably infer Hitler was such a person, cruelly indifferent to humans, but lovingly devoted to his German Shepherd dogs. I can even recall people half-excusing Hitler because he was an animal lover ! No surprise to hear they were animal liberationists.

This one is called poisoning the well. This fallacy attempts to discredit a claim based on irrelevant criteria. Rather than examining the claim, the arguer attacks the person's character, the origin of the idea, or something the idea or person is associated with, in this case Hitler's love of dogs and vegetarianism.

Quote

This is primarily a psychological phenomenon, and has more to do with the inner world of those so-afflicted, than external realities.

I'm assuming this is your own personal, uninformed opinion. If not, could you please cite your sources?

Quote

I have never heard an animal cruelty fanatic express concern over the seeming cruelties of the natural world, which have never ceased for hundreds of millions of years, the difference being that humans are not directly responsible.

First we have the use of loaded terms "fanatic". Next we have a straw man argument. No one made the claim that nature was cruel. Animal cruelty is a legal term, which can only be applied to humans since humans, according to the law authors are the only moral beings on the planet. Nature is not immoral, nature simply is.

This could also be categorized as a hasty generalization which consists of generalizing on the basis of an inadequate set of cases. Personally, I think the poster is deliberately leaving out evidence. Who is not aware of the compassion shown by "fanatics" to animal victims of hurricane Katrina?

Quote

I see animal cruelty campaigners as being as much anti-people as pro-animals in very many cases. Unless your heart extends as much to human "victims" as it does to animal ones, you are picking winners, in the same way "cute" fauna gets people motivated to protect, but "ugly" fauna can take their chances. Pandas are cuter than the average human, seemingly.

This is not a fallacy, this claim simply lacks any empirical evidence. It is the authors personal, uninformed opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it should not be confused with evidence.

I'm going to interject here, I've heard all these fallacies before. This first one is a false dichotomy, an exclusive either or that doesn't really exist. It is quite feasible to be concerned with animal welfare and human welfare at the same time. Exhibit A is William Wilberforce a leader in the fight against slavery and a founder of the RSPCA.

This one is called poisoning the well. This fallacy attempts to discredit a claim based on irrelevant criteria. Rather than examining the claim, the arguer attacks the person's character, the origin of the idea, or something the idea or person is associated with, in this case Hitler's love of dogs and vegetarianism.

I'm assuming this is your own personal, uninformed opinion. If not, could you please cite your sources?

First we have the use of loaded terms "fanatic". Next we have a straw man argument. No one made the claim that nature was cruel. Animal cruelty is a legal term, which can only be applied to humans since humans, according to the law authors are the only moral beings on the planet. Nature is not immoral, nature simply is.

This could also be categorized as a hasty generalization which consists of generalizing on the basis of an inadequate set of cases. Personally, I think the poster is deliberately leaving out evidence. Who is not aware of the compassion shown by "fanatics" to animal victims of hurricane Katrina?

This is not a fallacy, this claim simply lacks any empirical evidence. It is the authors personal, uninformed opinion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but it should not be confused with evidence.

Pull your head out of wherever it's stuck, Redhen, anyone who has failed to notice that particular breed of "animal lover" who simply could not give a rat's rear end about the fate of countless human victims of whatever cruel fate befalls them, has not been paying attention. It is so common I have seen it dozens of times. Instead of trying to impress with tales of false dichotomies and poisoned wells and whatever, how about you go to work and explain this phenomenon for me, unless you insist it is a fallacy and does not exist, in which case there is no point to this discussion. Seems to me you are a bit confused, I never claimed that a concern for animal welfare was incompatible with a similar concern for beleagured humans. You just couldn't resist the temptation to have yourself sound clever talking about Wilberforce. Let me leave you with an example of a now elderly chap I know who is forever taking in stray animals, and feeding every form of birdlife around his house. So far so good, but he made a rather callous quip when there was massive loss of life and homelessness in a natural disaster in Asia....." No problem, the way they breed over there they'll have made up the numbers in a few months". Enough said.

Joseph Campbell - “Life is a mystery to be lived, not a problem to be solved”

Posted 10 October 2012 - 03:17 AM

This is something I always have trouble with...

(foremost details - I believe in protecting humans first... ie. deer in road cant go off shoulder its drop off, car coming, I hit the deer, not risk myself or another motorist)

I have trouble with people and animals born with disabilities, physical, mental, disfigurement, etc. And others are not.

I say this because I feel guilty alot because I feel like I have been blessed all my life. Good family, healthy kids, etc. Things always seem to work out for me and honestly it bother's me on frequent occasion, when I see someone less fortunate than me. I know life is not fair, but it's easy to say when everything is all good.

Instead of trying to impress with tales of false dichotomies and poisoned wells and whatever, how about you go to work and explain this phenomenon for me

This is called shifting the burden of proof. You made a claim that many people have a "misanthropic streak, where people who perceive they have been wronged by the world of people, can readily identify with animal victims of human wrong-doing, but human victims can't be similarly empathised with, because they are, after all, of the very species that perpetrates these injustices. A feat of mental gymnastics no doubt, but not a rare one by any means, in my experience."

You said that you "have met many people" that fit this description. You also mentioned dozens of such people. And from that you make the inference that most animal welfare advocates hate people? Anyways, we're just quibbling about numbers now.

Quote

Seems to me you are a bit confused, I never claimed that a concern for animal welfare was incompatible with a similar concern for beleagured humans.

Ok good, so you don't think it's 100%, but you think it's many, based on people you've met. You made the claim, If you want me to believe you, I would need some peer reviewed articles.

Quote

You just couldn't resist the temptation to have yourself sound clever talking about Wilberforce. Let me leave you with an example of a now elderly chap I know who is forever taking in stray animals, and feeding every form of birdlife around his house. So far so good, but he made a rather callous quip when there was massive loss of life and homelessness in a natural disaster in Asia....." No problem, the way they breed over there they'll have made up the numbers in a few months". Enough said.

I will grant you that some people who are concerned about animal welfare have a misanthropic streak, but I don't believe this group constitutes the majority of animal advocates.

I will also grant you that cute animals get more publicity than say lobsters. Yet every year Buddhists around the world release marine life, including lobsters, back into the oceans as a gesture of compassion. And yes, these people are concerned about human welfare too.